The High Court refused Aditya Sharma’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a Circuit Court decision enforcing a Residential Tenancies Board order against him. Mr Justice Noonan delivered the ex tempore judgment on 13 June 2018.
The Board’s order followed a landlord’s application over rent arrears at a Celbridge tenancy. The judgment says an adjudicator ruled for the landlord after hearings in April and May 2017. Sharma appealed to the Board’s Tribunal, which heard his appeal in his absence on 7 September 2017 after refusing a further adjournment. He had been told he could attend through a representative or submit a written statement, but did neither. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicator, and the Board’s order directed Sharma to leave the premises and pay rent arrears and ongoing rent as it accrued.
Sharma did not comply. The Board began enforcement proceedings under section 124 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2014. At a hearing in the Circuit Court in Kildare on 1 May 2018, Sharma was represented by a solicitor and counsel. His counsel sought an adjournment to file a replying affidavit. The Circuit Court judge heard submissions from both sides, refused the adjournment and made an order enforcing the Board’s award.
Sharma argued that the decision should be quashed because he had not received fair procedures or a proper opportunity to present his case. The High Court rejected that argument. Mr Justice Noonan said Sharma had five weeks’ notice of the Circuit Court hearing and had not explained why he was not ready or why he had not filed an affidavit earlier. He said an adjournment was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion, and the fact that both sides had been heard supported the lawfulness of the decision.
The judge also said Sharma’s statement of grounds did not set out specific supporting facts, as required by Order 84, rule 20(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He said the application would fail on that basis, but also concluded that the Circuit Court had acted lawfully and within its jurisdiction.
The judgment noted that Sharma could have appealed the Circuit Court decision to the High Court but had not done so. A separate complaint about an opportunity to address costs was moot because the Board confirmed it was not pursuing costs in the Circuit Court proceedings. The High Court refused leave, finding no arguable grounds for judicial review. It did not reconsider the merits of the underlying tenancy dispute.